- Anandita Dutta Tamuly (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Rough consensus is not evident from the deletion discussion. We have a single delete vote from the nominator, and one keep vote, both supported with policy arguments. We have one comment from the article's author who should be counted as a strong keep and who edited the article to address some of the concerns that were brought up. In addition we have two comments that could be interpreted as deletes. The closing administrator claims that the article in its final form violated BLP without providing supporting arguments or evidence.
Moving from procedural to substantive arguments: the article's subject is not notable for a single event, but for a singular skill; this skill has been documented by several reliable sources. AxelBoldt (talk) 18:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Do not overturn to keep, There was not much consensus for any course of action in the AfD, but I'm not convinced that overturning this to a no consensus (default to keep) would be a satisfactory outcome. Equally, I'm not sure that userfication would produce much benefit as pretty much all the sources that currently exist seem to be in the article already, and there is no indication of when Guinness will come back with a definitive answer, even then it might be that they do not wish to maintain a record for this (which would not be definitive either way for notability purposes). The AfD was already resisted once, and that didn't attract a significant number of commenters. I really am not sure what outcome I think would be best here, so I would not object to any outcome other than an overturn to keep (as this was clearly not supported by the AfD). Thryduulf (talk) 12:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The only thing I can say about the AfD is that there's absolutely no consensus to do anything whatsoever. Tim Song (talk) 17:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that the proper close here was a finding of no consensus which, despite what some would like, still defaults to keep. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse closure as delete. First of all, the debate probably should've been relisted again – mainly because the first "relisting" was actually its first listing, period. The majority of the debate occurred between January 19 and January 27, when it was not listed on any AfD log page. A bot listed it on the January 27 log page for a week, but that only generated one vote, which in my mind ought to have led to a relist. In any case, arguments to delete presented during the debate included WP:BLP1E (or, as one commenter put it, BLP-zero-E) based on the problem of the article's subject being a living person notable for zero-to-one events which weren't themselves notable. As our WP:BLP policy states, "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them." The chief argument to keep was that the subject met WP:BIO and that BLP1E was not an issue because the subject was known for one skill, not one event. Two sources were offered to prove this; however, those sources were "human interest" pieces and did not demonstrate significant coverage by most standards. In the absence of proof of notability in general, the subject must be notable for no events whatsoever, therefore making BLP1E a perfectly valid argument. Moreover, taking Abductive's vote to userfy into consideration, there was a decent consensus that this article did not belong in the mainspace. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 22:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually the article was listed properly. [1]. The bot's edit was probably due to a failure of Cirt's relist script. So basically the AfD was not listed between Cirt's relist and the bot's listing it on the log where it should have gone.
You may consider the sources provided to be insufficient, and I may well agree, but that is beside the point. The question is whether there is a consensus that this is a BLP1E, and from the debate I cannot say there is anything of that sort. To say that two editors arguing that it's a BLP1E, with two others arguing against it, somehow creates a "consensus" would distort the word's meaning beyond all recognition. We ask the closer to evaluate the consensus on how to apply BLP1E, not to apply their own interpretation of it. That said, I'm quite unsure on how to proceed here. I'm not really convinced that this subject warrants inclusion, and the BLP status of the article further complicates the issue. I'll go with a relist here, I think, so that the article may be deleted properly, in accordance with a valid community consensus. Tim Song (talk) 04:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, good catch. I looked at Special:WhatLinksHere, but I forgot that relisted discussions are removed from the original log page. My mistake. As for the substance of the debate, it is true that there was little debate on the sources presented. However, we can assume that surely JBSupreme (the nominator) and Abductive (who later voted to incubate) rejected the idea that the sources presented by WineGuy conferred notability. This is in addition to PFHLai concurring with JBSupreme's BLP1E concerns. Ultimately, only WineGuy made policy-based arguments to keep. I don't think Xeteli's argument that this passes BLP1E should be given much weight, since it isn't policy-based and does not address notability concerns. I'm okay with a relist, however. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 18:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- relist I'm not seeing any real consensus either way with that. Further discussion seems necessary. Claims that this is a BLP1E deserve more detailed discussion. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Tricky one; first, I'm going to count noses. JBSupreme nominated- delete. Zeteli's comments, while not a !vote, are a keep. PFHLai recommends userfication, so I'll take the liberty to count that as a delete; Wine Guy clearly !votes keep; and Abductive suggests userfication/incubation. A strict count gives us two for maintaining the article in mainspace; and three for some form of removing it. Not quite the 1-1 !vote the counter spits out; but we don't do nose counting. In the policy field, Wine Guy's point that coverage of this woman extended for a period of four years over multiple media outlets, and that this satisfied WP:BLP1E went unanswered and unchallenged. I'm not seeing any consensus either way I look at this one, so relist for more discussion. (Might be better to just overturn this one to no consensus and immediately re-nominate to generate fresh discussion, but that's trivial) Bradjamesbrown (talk) 08:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- overturn to no consensus as there wasn't any (as commenters above have made clear). I don't object to a relist... Hobit (talk) 23:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|